I-Form Spread Formation

guitarchitect7 · 08-29-2008, 10:31 AM

Maybe I'm not paying attention, but last night was the first time I saw this formation.

WR.................T.G.C.G...FB...WR
...........................QB.................TE
............................FB
............................HB

Anyone else notice this. What are your thoughts on it? What are the rules regarding this kind of formation? Does the FB lined up near the guard qualify as a WR?

I like the concept of it as it provides a more agile blocker and another pass option if allowed with the FB. It puts the WR in good position to do an out post or some sort, and then keeps the TE near the line for possible blocking or a delayed route.

I will say I saw more I-Form last night than what I was anticipating. It seem to be the most effective, maybe the most practiced. The Spread Option they tried to run last night faltered pretty quick, but can be explosive if utilized correctly. I felt bad for Bates as I saw the blitz coming on that third down, and he ran right into it for the option play that went nowhere.

IcSyU · 08-29-2008, 10:35 AM

The way I look at that, the fullback next to the QB would NOT be a receiver because he's covered up on the outside, and on the bottom one, he needs to be on the line of scrimmage or it's an illegal formation (only 6 guys on the line of scrimmage).

Aclone · 08-29-2008, 10:35 AM

My first thought is that I'd rather not have anyone putting formations up on the interweb.

Other than that...it could just be that they were only showing stuff that they wanted future opponents to see--including both unfamiliar formations and only the tiniest portion of the playbook.

cycloneG · 08-29-2008, 10:35 AM

The I-Formation definitely had the best results when handing off. I saw some really good blocking by Ekwelundu.

illinoiscyclone · 08-29-2008, 10:36 AM

well the 2nd formation is illegal, so it would have to be the first. there must be 7 players "on" the line of scrimmage, which is not the case in the second. only the outside two are eligible recievers, so the fb lined up at T could not recieve a pass, unless the other wr lined up on the other side of the field and stayed on the line, making him ineligible but the fb eligible.

CloneIce · 08-29-2008, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Aclone

My first thought is that I'd rather not have anyone putting formations up on the interweb.

Other than that...it could just be that they were only showing stuff that they wanted future opponents to see--including both unfamiliar formations and only the tiniest portion of the playbook.

I don't think you need to worry about that. If any D-coordinator doesn't have all of our formations completely analyzed already from when he scouts us, that would be a first. They are certainly not getting their scouting reports from message boards.

guitarchitect7 · 08-29-2008, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by illinoiscyclone

well the 2nd formation is illegal, so it would have to be the first. there must be 7 players \"on\" the line of scrimmage, which is not the case in the second. only the outside two are eligible recievers, so the fb lined up at T could not recieve a pass, unless the other wr lined up on the other side of the field and stayed on the line, making him ineligible but the fb eligible.

Thanks for the clarification. Thats kind of what I was thinking as well and thus prompting this thread because then I question the validity of putting the FB in the T position. What I did notice is that FB swung around the DL and tried to block a LB quickly, so this might be the reasoning. Trying to get and OL guy deeper in the defense a lot more quickly.

Aclone · 08-29-2008, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by CloneIce

I don't think you need to worry about that. If any D-coordinator doesn't have all of our formations completely analyzed already from when he scouts us, that would be a first. They are certainly not getting their scouting reports from message boards.

Not exactly a first. Just, there was that hullabaloo out in Oregon(?) a couple of years ago, when some zealous fan diagrammed a bunch of plays for his fellow supporters that he'd seen in closed practices...turned out that it wasn't only his own team that could pick up something on the Web. Cost his team a couple of games, too.

But formations like these--that's why it was only my first thought. Just don't need to see it taken further.

besserheimerphat · 08-29-2008, 12:57 PM

If it's something you've seen in a game, then all of your opponents have seen it as well. If it's from a closed practice, however, that's just stupid.

mplscyclone · 08-29-2008, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Aclone

Not exactly a first. Just, there was that hullabaloo out in Oregon(?) a couple of years ago, when some zealous fan diagrammed a bunch of plays for his fellow supporters that he'd seen in closed practices...turned out that it wasn't only his own team that could pick up something on the Web. Cost his team a couple of games, too.

But formations like these--that's why it was only my first thought. Just don't need to see it taken further.

It was a game AND was on TV it wasn't a closed practice. Big difference. I'm sure other teams are able to get the film on this game.